Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Wow, what a stupid analogy.
That is not "market economics" but improvements in production
Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.
In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.
As it happens, back in the '80s I worked at a company (Commonwealth Scientific) that built ion-beam guns based on the Kaufman duoplasmatron, which was the basis of the mercury-vapor thrusters that NASA had developed in the 1960s. The company was trying to make the aperture of the guns as wide as possible, and the difficulties included neutralizing the ion beam on the way out, keeping the plasma inside the gun stable, and keeping the beam density even. Basically, the bigger the gun, the harder it was to make it run steadily. When I was there, they had 8" apertures and were working on scaling them up to 12" apertures.
Isn't the combustion chaotic?
I'm not sure who you're buying from if you're burning out a refrigerator in less than 5 years, but if you're buying any of the major brands, you shouldn't really be seeing functional issues five years. Are you running it off of an inverter?
We are all pretty good at fighting yesterday's battles. This happened in Europe, but in the USA there was time people could fly with only a ticket and not any ID, they could bring their guns with them too. Now you cannot have a gun, the cockpits are locked with farely strong doors because everybody is scared of terrorists, they didn't even have an axe on board, just a crowbar. Apparently the captain tried breaking the door with a crowbar, I wonder if he tried breaking the wall beside the door. Flying is completely fucked up, TSA harasses you and then you don't know if a psychotic pilot will kill you anyway.
How about TRYING FREEDOM for a change? Bring your ticket, allow people to take their guns with them and keep axes on board while removing insane cockpit doors?
Sure, everything can still go wrong, at least you are not just a sardin in a can, hoping not to be eaten this time around.
They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.
State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving state.gov being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.
And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her State.gov mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.
When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.
I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.
Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives. Despite her deliberate attempts to hide her communications from standard public review, you are giving her the benefit of the doubt
What's that have to do with points being discussed?
It goes to establishing her deliberate actions in this area. In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records, separate the official from the private, and return the private records to the person who blended them together. She knew this, and took actions to deliberately prevent such review. And knowing that subpoenas were coming, destroyed all evidence of how such decisions were made.
Yes, for the same price, not for cheaper.
And in many cases, also cheaper. The examples I cited above show that behavior as well. You need to get out more if you think that, say, a given tablet computer from this year isn't better and cheaper than it was a year or two ago. Or that an off-the-shelf quadcopter and gimbaled camera rig isn't many times as capable for a fraction of the cost it was just a couple years ago. Eeeeeevil market economics at work.
You don't have any evidence of that.
What? The evidence is that State said they had none of it, nor any record of having seen any such correspondence until she just recently dumped that self-selected pile of paper on them. SHE said that was when she provided them with "the appropriate" copies. Not when she was in office. Not when she left office. But years later when forced to. SHE said so, not me. Congressional investigators (under both parties) could find not a single indication she had ever provided those records, State's internal records show no such thing. FOIA and subpoena-based requests turned up no such thing.
So what is it you're looking for, to understand this? She herself says you're wrong. Does that cover it for you?
Making sure a full set is available here and now
She did NOT make a "full set" available, as required by law. She made available redacted hardcopies of only those that she decided she wanted other people to see. Investigators say that what she provided has gaps of weeks and months missing. What part of that are you refusing to hear?
Anyhow, let the smart lawyers work it out.
Her smart lawyer says there's no point allowing anyone with any forensic skills to look at her server to see if she's lying or not because she's deleted everything off of it. You don't have to trust MY judgement. Trust the "smart lawyer" you just cited. If you don't like THAT smart lawyer, trust the smart lawyers from the congressional investigations that took place multiple times now, and the smart lawyers from the Associated Press, all of whom disagree with you.
The price is usually only cheaper for products that have the same or less qualities / features.
That may be the point he was trying to make, but it's incorrect. Just look around. I can pick up a new camera from Nikon that's essentially the same price as the previous model while enjoying better features. The same is true of TV's from Samsung, or countless other devices. In real dollars, the same is true of cars, major appliances, all sorts of things.
Are you claiming the Blumenthal messages were never copied to the appropriate department persons?
Which "appropriate department persons?" Those messages were sent from him on his private account to her, on her private account. Period. She provided NONE of her email to State during her time there (required by the 2009 NARA), when she left (required by the Federal Records Act), or for year after she left - until a Romanian hacker spilled the beans. That's what got congress re-interested. Why? Because requests for the legislature for those records were coming up entirely empty. Multiple FOIA requests from external entities (like the NY Times, the Associated Press, etc - some of whom are now suing over the matter) came back completely empty.
She only printed out her personal selection of some of her emails (conveniently minus all header information, etc) when she could no longer maintain the lie-by-omission that the records didn't exist. "Oh, THESE emails? I didn't realize you meant THESE emails! Silly old me, I'm just a Grandma blah blah blah..."
Waiting years to provide culled copies, without anyone in a government archivist's role to weigh in on what's really relevant, is completely at odds withe spirit and letter of multiple rules and laws that were very much in play while she was there.
that does not mean she didn't later send a copy
No, that's EXACTLY what it means, because State, in responding to FOIA requests, said they had 100% of nothing of hers to meet those requests.
I don't know their reasoning, I cannot read their minds.
You're misunderstanding things here. It wasn't "they" that did this. It was SHE that did this. SHE decided, under pressure to finally produce some records before getting hauled into court to do so, to provide the emails she personally selected from her home server as header-redacted hardcopies. This wasn't the archive or IT people at State deciding that. That's what she dumped on them. However poor the archives at State may or may not be, her emails were not kept there, they were kept on her server at home. She's said as much. And she's said that she had her personal staff (people without clearances, paid for with funds much of which was supplied by foreign countries from whom she solicited huge sums of money while traveling abroad on taxpayer-paid trips) help her print them out so that State could finally have her records. You can't be still not getting this.
Ya, they are totally going to release a cheaper product that outperforms the competition in all areas and has added features. That is totally how Capitalism works.
Actually, that's exactly how a market economy works. Things get better and cheaper over time because of innovation and stiff competition. Or did you still spend $10,000 on a 40" flat screen TV this year, and hundreds of dollars for a 20MB disk drive? That must be frustrating for you.
Remember that one of the events leading to this was an email leaked by Romanian hacker Guccifer, who cracked into the private mailbox of Clinton confidant Sydney Blumenthal. He is advising her on sensitive intelligence (re: Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood, and much more) in a series of "highly confidential" messages. Those messages, by definition, never saw the State Department's mail servers or archiving systems as required by federal regulations in place at the time. Why? Because he was providing the Secretary of State with that sensitive information via a private mailbox on an server kept in her house, the contents of which government archivists will never have their legally mandated opportunity to review for what is, and is not government-related communication.
She went out of her way to keep such communications out of the hands of the archives. You can't possibly be confused on this subject.
Regardless, she did NOT claim that the State department had all of her records. If she held that position, then why did she (after the existence of her private stash had been discovered) agree to provide to State (long after she'd left office) 50,000+ printed out pages of emails once pressed on the matter years after she left office and there was no denying it? Why didn't she just refer the people seeking the records to the CC's you're saying were adequante? You know why: because she knew it would be BS to imply that was the extent of her legal public records. But of course we get ONLY her opinion on what was or was not relevant. Everything else has been deleted, says her lawyer. But